电影电视制作外文翻译文献

电影电视制作外文翻译文献电影电视制作外文翻译文献(文档含中英文对照即英文原文和中文翻译)HollywoodTheory,Non-HollywoodPractice:CinemaSoundtracksinthe1980sand1990s

TheSpectreofSound:MusicinFilmandTelevision

ExperiencingMusicVideo:AestheticsandCulturalContextAnnetteDavison.,HollywoodTheory,Non-HollywoodPractice:CinemaSoundtracksinthe1980sand1990s.Aldershot:Ashgate,2004,221pp.K.J.Donnelly.,TheSpectreofSound:MusicinFilmandTelevision.lLondon:BritishFilmInstitute,2005,192pp.CarolVernallis.,ExperiencingMusicVideo:AestheticsandCulturalContext.NewYork,NY:ColumbiaUniversityPress,2004,341pp.

\o"Footnotes"NextSectionThelasttimeacollectionofscreenmusic-relatedbookswasthesubjectofaScreenreview,thereviewerSimonFrithwasmovedtonoteeachwork's‘self-defeating…needtodrawattentiontotheirsubject'sneglect’aswellastheverylimitedmannerinwhichtheauthorsseemed‘tobeengagedwitheachother’.1Judgingbythebooksgroupedtogetherinthepresentreview,thescholarshipintheareaisnowmuchmorecollegiate,andtherequirementontheauthorstoself-diagnoseacademicisolationseemstohavebecomeunnecessary.AnnetteDavison,K.J.DonnellyandCarolVernallisshareaplethoraofcriticalreferencesonmusic–imagerelationships,fromTheodorAdornotoPhilipTaggandmanypointsinbetween.Asubstantialcanonofacademicwritingonmusicinnarrativefilmnowexists,anditcannolongerbeclaimedthatmusicvideoisascholarlyblindspot(asVernallisadmits).Ofthevariousmediaformatsdiscussedinthebooksunderreview,onlytelevisionmusicremainsrelativelyunder-representedacademically(thoughDonnelly'stwochaptersonthesubjectbegintheprocessofaddressingthisabsence).Inthiscontext,theauthors'taskwouldappeartobetopresentalternativestoexistingwork,ortobringnewobjectsofstudytocriticallight.Allthreestudiesmakeclaimsfortheirownoriginalitybyreferencingamodelof‘classical’narrativefilmmusicpractices:aconceptualizationofthesoundtrack'sroleasfittinginwithclassicalcinema'sperceivedstorytellingpriorities.Forallthebooks'individualmerits,theregularrecoursetonotionsoftheclassical,evenintheserviceofitsrefutation,raisesinterestingquestionsaboutthepossibility(orimpossibility)ofdoingwithoutsuchaconceptentirely.Thus,theseworksrevealthe‘classical’tobeacategoryasproblematicyetinsistentinwritingonmusic–imagerelationsasitisinotherareasofscreenstudiesenquiry.Asitstitlesuggests,Davison'sHollywoodTheory,Non-HollywoodPractice:CinemaSoundtracksinthe1980sand1990sengageswithclassicalfilmmusictheorymostexplicitly.Indeed,aboutaquarterofthebookisdevotedtotheexplicationof,first,ClassicalHollywoodCinemaasithasbeenconceivedacademically,andsecond,theclassicalscoringpracticeassociatedwithit(whichDavisonseesrevivedintheso-called‘post-classical’Hollywoodofthemid1970sonwards).ThisprovidesthegroundonwhichDavisonmakesherkeyclaim:Thecentralargumentofthisbookisthat,byoperatingasasignifierofclassical–and,indeed,NewHollywoodcinema–theclassicalHollywoodscoreofferedthosemakingfilmsoutsideandonthemarginsofHollywoodcinemainthe1980sand1990safurthermeansbywhichtheycoulddifferentiatetheircinemasfromHollywood's,throughtheproductionofscoresandsoundtrackswhichcritiqueorrefertothispracticeinparticularways(p.59).Therefollowcloseanalysesoffourfilmswhosesoundtracks,accordingtoDavison,refertotheclassicalmodelatthesametimeastheyofferanalternative.Throughhersequencingofthecasestudies,Davisonoutlinespossibilitiesofalternativepracticethatrangefromatotaldeconstructionoftheclassicalsoundtrack'sconventionalstorytellingfunctions(aswitnessedinJean-LucGodard'sPrenom:Carmen[1983])totheidentificationofascoringpracticethatmimicscertainaspectsoftheclassicalinitscollaborativenature,yetprovidesautopianalternativetoit(asseenthroughDavidLynch'sWildatHeart[1990]).Inbetween,sheexploresthenotionofthesoundtrackasa‘liberating’force(DerekJarman'sTheGarden[1990]),andthepotentialforacompromisetobefoundbetweenclassicalandalternativemodels(WimWenders'WingsofDesire[1987]).Davison'sreadingofeachfilmisimaginativeandverywelldetailed.Shedemonstratesaparticularfacilityforidentifying,andascribingasignificanceto,differenttypesofsoundonthesamesoundtrack.ThisisdonewithparticularsuccessinherreadingsofTheGardenandWingsofDesire.Heranalysisdoesnotseektohideherevidentmusicaltraining,but,innearlyallcases,remainsintelligibleandpersuasivetonon-musicologistssuchasmyself(whowilljusthavetoaccepttheoccasionaluseofmusicalnotationasprettypictures).Itisquestionablehowmuchoftheextremelycomprehensivescene-settingundertakenbyDavisoninthebook'searlysectionsisnecessaryforanappreciationoftheindividualfilmanalyses.Nevertheless,hersummariesofdiscussionsaboutclassicalandpost-classicalHollywoodcinemaandtheclassicalfilmscoreareexemplary,andtheyareconductedwithathoroughnesswhichisunderstandable,perhaps,inabookwhichtakesitsplaceinthepublisher'sPopularandFolkMusicseriesratherthaninascreenstudiescollection.Thereremainsamismatch,however,betweentheconcentrationonHollywoodasaninstitutional,industrialandideologicalforceintheearlychaptersofthebook,andtheauteuristbentoftheanalysisthatfollowsinlaterchapters.Forexample,thechapteron‘NewHollywoodcinemaand(post-?)classicalscoring’concludeswithstatisticalinformationaboutUScinema'sgrowthintheoverseasmarketduringthe1980s.Yetthisdetailseemsunnecessaryinthelightofthesubsequentinterpretationofthevariousnon-Hollywoodsoundtracksasimaginativeresponsestomainstreampracticesonthepartofindividualfilmmakers.ThedivisionbetweendescriptionsofHollywoodasintransigentlyinstitutional,andtheimplicitunderstandingofart-housecinemaasaspaceforthefreeexpressionoftheauteur(madeexplicitinthecelebrationofLynchinthefinalcasestudy)ismadetoocomplacentlyandmeansthatDavisondoesnotfulfilherpromisetoengage‘withinstitutionalissuesinrelationtofilmsoundtracksandscores’(p.6)ineverycase.Inthisrespect,thebookdoesnotfullyrealizethepotentialofitsmanyexcellentparts.ThecriticaltoneofDonnelly'sTheSpectreofSound:MusicinFilmandTelevisionalsofluctuatessomewhatfromsectiontosection,althoughthereaderispreparedforthisbytheauthor'searlyclaimthatthebookis‘arumination,aninvestigationofsomeoftheelusiveandfascinatingaspectsofscreenmusic’(p.3)ratherthanamorestrictlyhypothesis-basedaccount.Nevertheless,moreconcretejustificationisgivenforthebook'sattentiontoapleasinglyeclecticrangeofmaterial,whichincludestheworkofcanonizedauteurssuchasDavidLynchandStanleyKubrick,butalsomakesroomforadiscussionofthesoundtracksofSpace:1999,awholerangeofhorrormovies,andtheroleofmusicintelevisioncontinuitysegments.Donnellycharacterizesscreenmusicassomethingmoreintangiblethanisclaimedinthemoreclassicalaccountsfocusingonthescore'sovertstorytellingfunctions.Inspired,inparticular,bytheincreasinglycomplexsounddesignoffilmsproducedforreleaseincinemas,Donnellyargues:Whilefilmmusictraditionallyhasbeenconceivedaspartofnarration,workingforfilmnarrative,insomewaysitwouldbebettertoseeitaspartofthefilm'srepositoryofspecialeffects(p.2).Determinedtoexplorescreenmusic'smore‘unruly’qualities(atleastwhensetagainstanarrativeyardstick),Donnellyriffsaroundnotionsofmusic's‘ghostliness’inanimaginativemanner.Particularlyinrelationtocinema,heseesthehauntingactivitiesofthesoundtrackasconstitutingakindofsensuouspossessionoftheviewer.Donnelly(somewhatcontentiouslygiventhemedium'stechnologicaladvances)islesswillingtoadmittothepossessingcapabilitiesoftelevisionsoundtracks,butconcentratesinsteadonanotherkindof‘haunting’:thehabitualuseoffamiliarmusicintelevisionthatevokesthespectreofits‘lives’elsewhereasmuchasitappliesitselftoaparticulartelevisualcontext.ItisthenotionofscreenmusicasalwaysindicatinganotherplacethatmostusefullytiesthedifferentstrandsofDonnelly'seclecticstudytogether.Throughthisinterestinthe‘elsewhere’ofscreenmusic,Donnellysuccessfullyprobesareasoutsidethereachofclassicalnarrativefilmmusictheory,whichattendstothehereandnowofthesoundtrack'sinvolvementinaparticularfictionalscenario.However,thevalueoftheinsightswhichensuefromthissuccessfulescapefromamoreclassicalapproachissometimestakenforgranted.Donnelly'sanalysesasawholelacktheattentiontodetailwhichisoneofthevirtuesofDavison'scasestudies.Theauthoranticipatesthiscriticismearlyonbyacknowledgingthatthebook‘providesa“longshot”,allowingthesortofsynopticviewunavailabletodetailedanalysis,ratherthanthepredominant“close-up”ofmanyprecedingfilmmusicstudies’(p.3).Theloss,intermsofanalyticaldepth,thatthiscriticalstrategynecessitates,isnotalwayscompensatedforbythebook'scommendablebreadth.Forexample,arelativelysustainedanalysisofLynch'sLostHighway(1996)isnotasconvincingasitmightbeduetoanunwillingnesstoprovidesufficientevidenceforitsclaims.Onthefilm'sheavyuseofpre-existingpopsongs,Donnellycomments:Arethesesongappearancessimple‘commentsontheaction’?Idon'tthinkso.Itismoreasiftheactionemanatesfromthesongsthemselves,particularlyfromtheirgrainofsoundandrhythmicaspects(p.28).Thisassertionisallowedtofendforitself,intheabsenceofmoreparticularcommentaryabouttheinteractionbetweentheactionandsongineachspecificcase.Thevalueofinvestigatingscreenmusic'sless‘submissive’qualitiesinrelationtonarrativeprincipleswouldbebetteradvocatedthroughadetailedinterpretationthatalsoengageswiththepossibilitythatthesoundtrackfulfilsmoreconventionalstorytellingfunctions.Characterizingthe‘elsewhere’ofscreenmusicsurelybecomesmoreinterestingifitsrelationshiptootherspacesisacknowledgedanditsownterritoryismappedindetail.Vernallis'sExperiencingMusicVideo:AestheticsandCulturalContextcombinestheimaginativefacilitythatfiresDonnelly'sbookwiththeattentiontodetailthatcharacterizesDavison's.Herstudyisextremelycomprehensiveinfulfillingitspromisetotake‘themusicofmusicvideomostseriously’(p.x),thereby‘attemptingananalysisthattakesmusicalcodes,processes,andtechniquesasprovidingmeansbywhichvideoimagecanbestructured’(p.209).Ononelevel,asVernallisadmits,thisisabelatedconsolidationoftheinitiativestakeninAndrewGoodwin'sfoundationalmusictelevisionstudyDancingintheDistractionFactory:MusicTelevisionandPopularCulture.2Initsimplementation,however,Vernallisfarexceedsthisbrief.Therearechaptersonnarrativeandediting,asyoumightexpectfromastudywhoseaimitistodeconstructtheformofthemusicvideo;lessexpectedistheattentiontoaspectssuchassupportingperformers,propsandthesensualqualitiesof(auralandvisual)space,colour,textureandtime.Eveninthemorepredictablesections,Vernallisexploresrelationshipsbetweensongandimagewhichexpandacriticalunderstandingofthemusicvideo'spossibilities.Forinstance,inthechapteronediting,shegoesfarbeyondthestandardnotionthatvideoscuttheirimagestotherhythmofthesong,tosuggest:Obviously,editingcanreflectthebasicbeatpatternofthesong,butitcanalsoberesponsivetoallofthesong'sotherparameters.Forexample,longdissolvescancomplementarrangementsthatincludesmoothtimbresandlong-heldtones.Avideocanusedifferentvisualmaterialtooffsetanimportanthookoradifferentcuttingrhythmatthebeginningsandendsofphrases.And,ofcourse,theseeffectscanswitchfromone-to-onerelationshipstosomethingthatismorecontrapuntal(p.49).Thesekindsofexpressivepossibilitiesarethenillustratedthroughagreatrangeofexamples,allanalysedwithaninterpretiverichnessthatmakestheinclusionofthreeextendedcasestudychaptersattheendofthebookalmostfeelliketoomuchofagoodthing.Inherafterword,Vernallisclaimsthatherbook‘attemptstolayoutthebasicmaterialsofmusicvideo,muchasDavidBordwellandhiscolleaguesdoforcinemainTheClassicalHollywoodCinemaorFilmArt’(p.286).ExperiencingMusicVideowillcertainlyproveusefulasatextbook,andsomeoftheunnecessaryrepetitionbetweenchaptersmaybeexplainedbyanexpectationthatthebookwillbeconsultedinseparatechunksonindividualweeksofacourseratherthanasawhole.However,IfeelthatVernallisissellingherselfshortwithhercomparison.Thereisanimaginativeandidiosyncratic,yetdisciplined,interpretiveimpulsebehindheranalysiswhichTheClassicalHollywoodCinema3explicitlyrejects.HerbookhasmoreincommonwiththepoeticcategorizationsofsoundtheoristMichelChionor,castingthenetmorewidely,thesensitiveresponsestotheintricaciesofafilmedfictionalworlddemonstratedbyGeorgeM.Wilson'sNarrationinLight:StudiesinCinematicPointofView.4BothWilsonandVernallisseizeon‘moments’whichtheauthorsthenseektoexplaininrelationtotheirfictionalworld,whetherthatbeasettingstimulatedbydramaticpossibilities,asinthecaseofnarrativefilm,ormusicalparameters,asisthecasewiththemusicvideo.AsVernallisstates,byattendingtothesmallestofmoments,‘itwillbepossibletoworktowardseeinghowthevideobuildstowardthismomentandmovesawayfromit’(p.202).Onanumberofoccasions,evenanattentiveandimmersedcriticlikeVernalliscannotresistthetemptationtocomparesong–imagerelationshipsinthemusicvideowiththeperceived‘typical’conventionsofclassicalcinemaandclassicalnarrativefilmmusic.Thisnecessitatesadiversionfromthebook'sprimary,andmostlaudable,aimtofullyunderstandtheinfluenceofthemusicofthemusicvideo.Inallthreebooks,theacknowledgementofabodyoffilmmusicwritingthatcanbecategorizedas‘classical’providesevidenceofanowmaturefieldofstudy.Thisliteratureisnotalwaysintegratedseamlesslywiththeauthors'ownarguments.Allthreeworksprovideilluminatinginsightsintotypesofscreenmusicthatarenotaccountedforadequatelybyclassicaltheory.However,theargumentsworkbestwhenengagingcarefullywiththespecificrelationshipsobservableandaudibleintheirchosenobjectsofstudy,ratherthanlookingovertheshouldertowardsmodelsofclassicalnarrativefilmmusic,orassumingthevalueofananalysissimplybecauseitdoesnotfittheclassicalmould.Inthekindoftext-basedcriticismpursuedbyallthreewriters,themostgenerouskindofcriticalactivitycanalsobethemostmyopic.Vernallis'sbook,inparticular,showstherewardsofaclosereadingofparticularmoments,asitproducesinsightswhichmayinspirethereadertounderstand,innewandsurprisinglights,notonlythatmoment,butotherstheyencounterthemselves.IanGarwood\o"PreviousSection"PreviousSection

Footnotes↵SimonFrith,Screen,vol.41,no.3(2000),p.335.↵AndrewGoodwin,DancingintheDistractionFactory:MusicTelevisionandPopularCulture(Minneapolis,MN:UniversityofMinneapolisPress,1992).↵DavidBordwell,JanetStaigerandKristinThompson,TheClassicalHollywoodCinema:FilmStyleandModeofProductionto1960(London:Routledge,1985).↵GeorgeM.Wilson,NarrationinLight:StudiesinCinematicPointofView(Baltimore,MD:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,1986).

《好莱坞理论、非好莱坞实践：20世纪80年代至20世纪90年代的原声带电影》——声音的魅力：电影和电视剧中的音乐体验型的音乐视频：美学与文化语境最后一次收集的屏幕与音乐有关的书籍是主题为屏幕的专业评论，评论者是SimonFrith，她很感动，并注意到各项工作间的弄巧成拙......需要提请注意的是她们忽视主题以及非常有限的方式，在这种方式中，作者们似乎愿意相互帮助以完成工作。从目前收集到的评论书籍中可以判断，和以前相比，该地区大部分学术成就是分学院的，并且要求对作者进行的自我诊断和学术隔离似乎已经不太成为必要。AnnetteDavison、K.J.Donnelly以及CarolVernallis分享了大量关于音乐形象的批判参照书籍，这些书籍覆盖了从TheodorAdorno到PhilipTagg，以及大量两者观点之间的书籍。如今，存在着大量经典的音乐学术作品，这些作品都是基于叙事电影写作的，并且它可以不再声称那个音乐视频是一个学术的盲点（正如Vernallis所承认那样）。专业评论角度下，书中讨论的各种媒体格式，只有电视音乐仍然具有相对的学术代表性（尽管Donnelly的两篇关于这个问题文章开始了解决这种缺失的进程）。在这种情况下，作者的任务似乎已经变成提出可替代目前现有工作的观点，或把新研究对象带到学术界批判的眼光之下。所有三项研究成果都为她们自己学术的原创性做出了声明，而且这些声明都是通过引用经典叙事电影音乐实践模型的方式做出的：一个概念化的原声带的角色，在经典电影中与讲述优先级的感知故事相配合。对于所有书，其每本书的价值在于，即使在其驳斥的论述中也可以引发一种有趣的问题，该问题就是研究中完全不使用这种理论的可行性或不可行性。即经常求助于经典于概念，即使是在事务中驳斥了，引发了可能（或不可能）的完全没有这种概念做有趣问题。因此，这些作品成果揭示出'经典'也有可能是一种疑难问题，它一直还运用于音乐形象关系的学术写作中，如同在屏幕学习探索领域的应用一样。如其标题所示，Davison的《好莱坞理论，非好莱坞实践：20世纪80年代至20世纪90年代的原声带电影》非常明确地运用了经典的电影音乐理论。事实上，大约有四分之一的这本书进行了这样的解释：首先，假设古典好莱坞电影理论已经获得学术上的地位；其次，古典的得分实践与之相联系（其中Davison认为在20世纪70年代中期出现的后古典好莱坞复兴正在继续）。这就为Davison提出她关键的理论提供了依据︰这本书的中心论点是，通过操作经典的信号物——而且事实上，新好莱坞电影——古典好莱坞评分在1980年代和1990年代提供了进一步制作那些质量在好莱坞电影外面和边缘的电影的手段，她们可以区分她们从好莱坞的电影院，通过产品的分数和配乐她们可以区分自己的电影与好莱坞电影，这些产品的分数和配乐通过特殊的途径批判或涉及这种实践。通过对四部电影的配乐的跟踪分析，根据戴维森，指在时间为他们提供另一种同样的经典模型。她通过测序研究的情况，戴维森概述替代实践从总解构经典电影配乐的传统讲故事的功能到一个练习，模仿经典的某些方面在其合作性质的认定范围的可能性，但它提供了一个理想的替代。在这两者之间，她探讨了电影配乐的概念是一种“解放”的力量，在古典与另类的模式之间找到了一种妥协的可能性。戴维森的每部电影里阅读是想象力和非常详细的。她展示了一个特定的识别设备，并赋予不同类型的原声意义。这一点在他的《花园和欲望的翅膀》完成的特别好。她的分析并不试图隐藏她的明显的音乐训练，但是，在几乎所有的情况下仍然是可理解的这样的非音乐的说服力。戴维森在书的开头部分所进行的非常全面场景的设置，认为这是必要的单个电影的欣赏分析，这一点是多少值得商榷的。不过，她对古典和古典后好莱坞电影和经典电影配乐讨论的总结是有示范性的，并且总结的方式也是容易理解的，也许是在发布的流行和民间音乐系列需要这样一本书的地方而不是在一个屏幕研究。但是好莱坞的意思在书的前几章的机构，工业和意识形态的力量，以及导演在后面的章节后面的分析之间仍然存在不匹配。例如，在“新好莱坞电影和经典进球”的一章总结有关20世纪80年代在海外市场的美国电影的成长的统计信息。然而，在各种非好莱坞电影配乐的细节，以个人电影制作人的部分主流做法，富有想象力的响应后续解释的不是必要的。艺术电影院的导演的自由表达空间心领神会好莱坞的描述为顽固机构之间的分工，是由太沾沾自喜，意思是戴维森没有完全按照他在书中任何情况下“与体制问题有关的电影配乐和分数”。在这方面，这本书并没有完全实现其许多优秀部分的潜力。Donnelly在声音的魅力中写道：电影和电视音乐每阶段都有不同，但读者可以通过作者的早期理念：这本书是“费尽心思做一些难以捉摸的调查，为此做好了准备和影视的音乐“（第3页），而不是严格的基于假设表面。然而，更关注这本书的是具体的给出的理由，各种范围内的材料，包括经典的导演如戴维林奇和斯坦利库布里克的作品，也是一个配乐讨论室：1999年，一系列的恐怖电影，和电视连相比就是音乐的作用。唐纳利的影视音乐相比在更经典的作品，得分之处是更无形的专注于的讲故事。这一点让他受鼓舞，特别是由电影制作的电影的日益复杂的声音设计，唐纳利认为：传统的电影音乐被看作是一种叙事的一部分，在电影叙事中，在某种程度上，它会更好地把它看作是电影中的一部分。下定决心去探索音乐的更多屏幕任性的素质，唐纳利的即兴演奏在音乐的魔力的概念，用形象的方式。特别是关系到电影院，他认为配乐可以构成一种观众的感性上的占有。唐纳利是不愿意承认电视原声带的具有功能，但集中而不是另一种魔力：在电视台，一个特定的电视背景一样的熟悉的音乐的习惯性使用配乐对他在生活别处也